the roles and responsibilities of middle … roles and responsibilities of middle management (chairs...

Chairs and Deans Canada: Paper In-press (November 2008)

_____________________________________________________

1

The Roles and Responsibilities of Middle Management

(Chairs and Deans) in Canadian Universities

Lydia M. Boyko and Glen A. Jones

1. INTRODUCTION

Major shifts have taken place in the relationship between Canada’s universities and the state over

the last decade. Interest is growing in policy approaches that stimulate market-like competition

within the university sector (Jones & Young, 2004), and substantial changes in research support

encourage private sector partnerships, recognize institutional overhead costs, and invest in

human resources and research infrastructure. Canadian universities are increasingly subjected to

new government accountability requirements, and there are rising public expectations related to

the universities’ contributions to regional and national economic development. Given this

environment, one may assume that the management of Canadian universities has become more

demanding and complex, especially at the level of middle-management. Academic middle-

managers face the challenge of functioning at the interface between the university’s central

administration and the faculties and departments where the rubber of the new marketized and

strategic research environment meets the road of daily academic life. Are the roles of middle-

managers in Canadian universities changing?

Our objective in this paper is to examine the roles and responsibilities of middle

management in Canadian universities, specifically, the department “chair” (also referred to as

“head”) and the faculty “dean”, in order to ascertain whether these functions have changed – in

rhetoric or in fact – as a function of a “new public management” or “new managerialist”

paradigm that seems to be penetrating higher education systems and institutions worldwide. Our

objective is to understand how Canadian universities describe and define these positions through

an analysis of institutional documents and collective agreements with respect to the appointment

process, terms of office, depiction of duties and other conditions of employment.

We begin the paper by describing the Canadian university sector, including its

institutional governance and administrative structures. We provide a brief retrospective on the

development of the position of the chair and the office of the dean and then present the findings

of our empirical study of current arrangements.


_____________________________________________________

2

2. CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES: ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE

Canada is a federation of 10 provinces and three territories. The responsibility for education is

constitutionally assigned to the provinces. There is no national ministry of education or higher

education. The federal government provides indirect support to postsecondary education through

fiscal transfers to the provinces and territories, and direct support in policy areas such as research

and development and student financial assistance. (Fisher, Rubenson, et al, 2006)

The vast majority of university students attend publicly-supported institutions; a small

number are enrolled in a handful of small private institutions established in recent years. The

more traditional public university sector comprises 45 institutions that offer primarily

undergraduate programs, 15 universities classified as comprehensive, and another 15 identified

as medical/research (Jones, 2006).1

Canada’s public universities are legally chartered as private not-for-profit corporations.

With a few exceptions, each of these universities has been established by a unique legislative

charter with substantial differences among them in the structure, composition, powers and

responsibilities of their respective governing bodies (Jones, 2002). Universities are largely self-

governing, with considerable flexibility in the management of their financial affairs and program

offerings. Most Canadian universities have a bicameral system of governance specified under

their corporate charter involving an administrative board of governors and an academic senate.

Boards are assigned responsibility under the charter for financial and administrative policy.

Senates are responsible for academic policy, including approving programs of study, courses and

curricula, and admission requirements. The boards are superior to the senates in the nature and

scope of their authority.

At most Canadian universities, a chancellor is the titular head of the institution in a

largely ceremonial role. The senior executive officer of the university is the president (also

1 There is some ambiguity over the classification of universities in Canada since they are counted in different ways by different organizations. For example, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) specifies 91 Canadian public and private not-for-profit universities and university-degree level colleges within its membership, including affiliates of institutions. In the AUCC records, the University of Toronto is listed separately from three colleges that are commonly regarded as constituent components of the federated University: University of Trinity College, Victoria University and University of St. Michael’s College. The number reflected in this paper follows the recent Statistics Canada approach to classification (Orton, 2003), where affiliates are not considered individually.


_____________________________________________________

3

referred to as “principal” or “rector”) who is appointed by the board on the recommendation of a

search committee. The president is appointed for a finite time period, subject to renewal, and

reports to and can potentially be dismissed by the board. While the administrative structures vary

among universities, typically, two vice-presidents play a leading executive management role in

each institution: an academic vice-president (sometimes called a “provost”) responsible for

academic policy; and an administrative vice-president focusing on financial and operational

policy issues (Jones, 2002). Other vice-president-level positions may also be created for

specialized areas such as human resources, external relations, research and technological

innovation. As a rule, universities are organized into faculties, lead by a dean, and departments,

headed by a chair.

The vast majority of the 34,000 full-time faculty members at the public universities

(CAUT, 2007) are members of unionized faculty associations. Collective agreements are

negotiated locally between the central administration of the university, on behalf of the corporate

board, and the institution-level faculty union. These agreements deal with a wide range of faculty

human resource issues, including specifying the specific procedures for academic appointments,

tenure and promotion. These agreements have important implications for the work of chairs and

deans since the agreements describe the responsibilities of these academic administrators in these

important processes. In addition to faculty, chairs and deans may also be directly involved in

day-to-day management issues of workers represented by other unions, including, for example,

support staff, part-time faculty, sessional instructors and teaching assistants.

CHAIRS AND DEANS: CHANGE OVER TIME

In Canada, department chairs and faculty deans have received little attention in the research

literature of higher education, and there are surprisingly few references to these positions in

works focusing on the history of higher education in this country. The earliest references to

chairs and deans, distinct from the professoriate, appear as isolated references in compendia

chronicling the expansive and fragmented evolution of Canada’s higher education network of

structures, systems and governance models – a reflection of the heterogeneity in the

establishment of our postsecondary institutions, most of which have grown organically over the

span of close to 175 years. By and large, university chairs have been profiled as “faculty”,


_____________________________________________________

4

specifically, members of teaching and research staff of a unit. University deans have been

characterized as “senior management” and discussed in the company of senior academic

administrators such as the vice-president (academic) and research, and directors of schools and

divisions.

Given that most institutions were extremely small during the mid-to-late 1800s, the

university president usually fulfilled the functions that we would now associate with a dean

(Harris, 1976). A department often consisted of a single instructor specializing in a given subject.

By 1860, at the University of Toronto, four new departments had been established with associate

chairs: for math and natural philosophy, chemistry, natural history, and mineralogy and geology.

Effectively, the title of chair mattered little as the scientist in charge of each area had been

generally, not specifically, trained. The Faculty of Arts, which also embraced adult education

and graduate instruction and included professors with cross-appointments to the Faculties of

Theology and Engineering, was dominated by the president (Harris, 1976). Indeed, the

president’s power and influence over his institution appeared pervasive in certain universities

into the 1930s. Chairs and deans were considered senior faculty expected to support all executive

policies; those who dared to question any related decisions could be threatened with termination

(Horn, 1999). During the Depression, for cost-saving reasons, only deans who had teaching

responsibilities were typically kept on; other deans were let go due to the extremely difficult

economic conditions at some institutions. This unfortunate circumstance led to a trend of

university boards assuming increasing decision-making authority on staff-associated matters,

particularly in recruitment and retention. Job security and tenure were not part of common

parlance and seemed severed from the academic concept of “freedom” until the emergence of

representative faculty associations and the movement toward unionization in the 1960s and

1970s.

Before the period of rapid university expansion in the 1960s, the roles of the chair and the

dean appeared rather straightforward, with a focus on academic affairs, notably, maintaining

relationships with faculty and students. Administration was hierarchical but relatively flat.

Department chairs reported to deans, who had only vice-presidents and the president above them

(Tudiver, 1999). Deans were appointed by the president without formal input from members of

the teaching staff and usually came from inside the university. The dean, often in consultation


_____________________________________________________

5

with the vice-president, to whom he or she reported, recommended salary amounts and benefits,

developed budgets, put forward candidates for promotion, hired new faculty, ruled on requests

for sabbaticals, arranged workload and implemented disciplinary procedures.

Accountability and the “more scholar for the dollar” dictum of the 1970s came with more

stringent demands by governments to show evidence of efficiency and cost-effectiveness as they

reduced monies flowing to the institutions (Vickers, 1979), increasing scepticism within the

broader public community over the role and relevance of the “ivory tower”, concomitant with

concerns over barriers to accessibility. Senior academics-turned-amateur administrators are said

to have earned ulcers or heart attacks as a reward for their service, and at the price of academic

career progress (Macdonald, 1979).

The academy was being described as a big university business (Macdonald, 1966). The

student population more than tripled between the early 1950s and 1960s, from 63,000 to 200,000

students in the postsecondary system, accommodating post-World War II veterans, immigrants

and the beginning of the baby-boom bulge. The responsibilities of the university administration

were becoming more complex as the “multiversity” took shape. The “head” was compared to “a

foreman in industry” (Brann, 1972, in Watson, 1979, p. 21), at the lowest rung of the university’s

structure (Watson, 1979), at times experiencing “severe cost pressures” if department colleagues

and higher administrators held different expectations of the head’s position responsibilities. The

work was described as an “unrewarding experience” (Watson, 1979, p. 21).

Departments were expanding, and the power structure and relations among faculty were

shifting in favour of more participatory decision-making arrangements. Many junior faculty were

hired before they had completed their doctorate, and they struggled to secure both higher

education degrees and a say in decision-making (Watson, 1979). The thrust toward

democratization required a redefinition of the role of the department; the change in title from

“head” to “chairman” is said to have indicated the different status of a department’s academic

administrators in more democratic institutions (Moses & Roe, 1990).

In a study conducted in 1984 at one university in Western Canada, Watson (1986) found

that some department members believed the primary role of a department administrator was to

provide academic leadership and wanted a “head” who would hold office long enough “to make

an impression” (p. 18) with sufficient freedom to do so. However, the majority of respondents


_____________________________________________________

6

approved of chairs who operated within a broadly participatory form of administration; they

wanted a chair who would coordinate the affairs of the department and represent the department

in institutional decision-making structures. In particular, Watson noted that faculty saw the

functions of a chair in narrow terms such as preparing and administering annual budgets, seeking

funds for the area, course scheduling, allocating space and securing other facilities. Authority

over academic policies, programs and standards; faculty selection, tenure, promotion and

reappointment; and student admission and graduate assistantship assignments were all

considered to be rightfully within the purview of the entire department – either through an

elected committee or a department council including all faculty members. Decisions pertaining

to research funding were deemed to be an individual faculty member’s responsibility.

Fundamentally, the chair was, first and foremost, viewed as a “coordinator/administrator”;

“academic leadership” scored low on the priority scale (Watson, 1986, p. 21).

These perceptions were in line with the changes in university administration in Canada

that had been taking place since the mid-1960s, notably, the decentralization of decision-making

and the increase in faculty influence on academic policy. Universities had been growing rapidly

in number and enrolment. For some faculty, institutional growth led to new administrative

structures and arrangements that felt increasingly bureaucratic, and there was a sense of

alienation in the face of what some perceived to be “hard-nosed administrative responses to

faculty concerns” (Penner, 1978-79, p. 72). In response to faculty and student pressure,

institutional governance structures were reformed to become more transparent and democratic.

Faculty unionization became a mechanism to increase job security in the context of stable or

declining government grants in the 1970s, but it also served to shift the power relationships

within the university in order to limit administrative discretion by creating detailed procedures

for academic tenure and promotion decisions and formalizing the contractual conditions of

academic work. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) provided a national

forum for the exchange of information among faculty associations and developed model policies

and contract language to support institution-level bargaining.

This direct faculty involvement in administrative matters marked a dramatic change in

the university’s power structure and fostered a more democratic administration, as the

longstanding dominance of dean’s councils and the “old boys’ network”, where senior professors


_____________________________________________________

7

and administrators served as power brokers for their own interest, was significantly weakened

(Penner, 1978-79, p. 82). Faculty and administrators “met as legal equals at the bargaining table,

no longer as beggars and supplicants” (Savage, 1994, p. 58). At the same time, collective

agreements weakened the role and influence of senates (Penner, 1994), limited administrative

discretion, were time-consuming to negotiate and administer, and reinforced the division

between management and non-management staff. Even faculty associations that did not seek

union status entered into university agreements focusing on personnel issues such as job security,

grievances, professional development, and the procedures for determining salaries and benefits

(Anderson & Jones, 1998).

In the 1970s, a study was conducted to gather baseline data about deans in Canadian

universities, with a focus on their background, career patterns, role characteristics and

professional development needs (Konrad, 1978). The majority of deans were found to be male,

middle-aged, tenured faculty members. Three-quarters of the surveyed population held a doctoral

degree, half of which were earned in the United States. Appointment terms varied slightly across

faculties, averaging five years. Power and leadership activities were viewed as priority

responsibilities; staff development, planning and external relations were ranked lowest. Pre-

service and in-service administrative training and development were determined to be

inadequate. Greater interaction of deans across faculties and institutions was recommended.

Findings of a comparative study of academic decision-making in eight major Canadian

and British universities (Lawless, 1981) conducted in the early 1980s advanced the notion of

department heads in Canada being “clearly identified as administrators” (p. 6), with limited

power and direct access to the executive level that included the university principal or president.

Based on input from department faculty members, Canadian heads were frequently selected

through a formal process for a limited term of about five years. These appointments did not

necessarily go to the senior professor in the department. In Britain, heads appeared to hold more

power, with guaranteed direct access to the vice-chancellor. The study also determined that the

Canadian dean was “clearly an administrator with considerable power” (p. 5), enjoying a

substantive budget. Canadian deans were selected through a highly formalized process for a

minimum five-year term, with possibility of renewal. They were found to exercise “considerable

influence both within their faculty and the university community” (p. 5). Lawless argued that an


_____________________________________________________

8

insistence on the democratic process in Canadian universities skewed the selection of department

heads toward outspoken individuals who were “popular” and, therefore, “more readily

identifiable by other academics” or “less resistant or reluctant to accept the position” (p. 27).

Fears that there had been an increase in “bureaucratized academic administration, or the so-

called corporate model of government” (p. 26), were not substantiated in the study. Participants

viewed “bureaucratization” as providing “continuity and direction in times of difficulty” (p. 26),

as long as appropriate checks were in place, notably, performance reviews and service renewal

ceilings.

While academic administration had not evolved to become entirely corporate in

orientation, Canadian universities had clearly advanced into complex, frequently large,

organizations. They were administratively intricate, autonomous institutions that were self-

governing and self-administering. Collective bargaining had concretized the division between

management and labour. In the early stages of collective bargaining, some university

administrations had sought to exclude department chairs from the bargaining unit on the grounds

that these were management positions, while faculty associations argued that chairs were

“academic team leaders” and proposed that deans also be included in the bargaining unit for the

same reasons. This issue was eventually resolved through labour board decisions across the

country, which positioned department chairs inside the faculty bargaining units (Penner, 1978-

79). Under current collective agreements, department chairs are typically defined as members of

the bargaining unit, while faculty deans are viewed as management and are excluded from the

union.

The notions of chairs as team leaders allied closely with faculty, and deans as

administrators allied closely with senior management – reinforced by collective agreements –

have given credence to the traditional view of two fronts within the academy. Brown (2001) cites

studies conducted in North America and Australia showing that chairs in particular find

personnel problems the most difficult to handle and their succession planning needs to be

improved. Most chairs see themselves as peers with fellow faculty members and are reluctant to

go into the role, which they do not view as being part of their university career paths. For

example, at the University of Saskatchewan, the Department Head Leadership Program was

instituted several years ago to address concerns expressed and demonstrated by its chairs and to


_____________________________________________________

9

foster “creative change” (Brown, 2001, p. 313). Chairs have been encouraged to use personal

experience and expertise to nurture their colleagues and to maintain their unit’s effectiveness and

cost-efficiency. Evidence of this model for chair leadership is not documented widely, although

leadership development initiatives as part of broader organizational learning and development

are increasingly common. For example, the University of Manitoba has in place a Leadership

and Supervisory Support network of staff programs such as coaching and best practices

assessment, recognizing that individuals in both academic and administrative functions who lead

work units and teams are often in leadership roles because of their excellence in the technical

area of focus, not necessarily for their management experience or skills (University of Manitoba,

2007). Manitoba’s academic management programs are available across Canada and can be

custom-tailored to the needs of specific institutions. Conferences featuring subjects such as the

challenges facing department chairs and women administrators in the academy are also

organized. McGill University offers a wide array of leadership courses as part of an institution-

wide staff development program, anchored in skills and techniques such as delegating and

empowering others, coaching, time and project management, supervisory roles and

accountability (McGill University, 2007). The University of Ottawa runs a Centre for Academic

Leadership to support deans, chairs and other individuals in their role as managers, aiming to

“capture the interest of future academic leaders and prepare the next generation”. Through a

series of structured job-related professional development programs, other learning resources and

mentoring initiatives, the Centre aims to facilitate networking among colleagues holding

academic-unit management positions and offers to all professors the opportunity to explore

alternative career paths (University of Ottawa, 2007).

3. INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES ON CHAIRS AND DEANS

In the preceding section, we discussed the development of the role of chairs and deans in

Canadian universities. In this section, we review the results of a study2 of current institutional

documents that illuminate the nature of these positions. We selected a representative sample of

30 of the 76 degree-granting public universities in Canada3 on the basis of their size, institutional

2 The study was conducted over a six-month period: December 2006 through April 2007. 3 This number aligns with Statistics Canada classification information (Orton, 2003).


_____________________________________________________

10

classification, programs, language and geographic location. In the Canadian context, “public”

universities are defined as institutions that receive government operating support. Our study

excluded private, denominational and other special-interest institutions. Universities from all 10

provinces are represented. The sample included universities that are English, French and

bilingual; small, mid-sized and large. The sample also represented a balance of universities

categorized as comprehensive, medical/research and primarily undergraduate, based on the

emerging Statistics Canada classification system (Orton, 2003).

We explored the website of each selected university (and faculty association) to obtain

relevant policy documents that describe the positions of chair and dean4, including appointment

policies, memoranda of understanding and collective agreements. We also looked at position

descriptions in advertisements for chairs and deans and any other institutional documents or

resources that would help us understand the role and work of these academic administrators.

Finally, in order to determine how these administrators are remunerated, we obtained customized

national salary data from Statistics Canada that allowed us to compare the salaries of full

professors, chairs and deans by analyzing data from a representative sample of 50 universities.

Of the 30 universities included in our web-based sample, 26 have faculty unions

representing full-time faculty. In the four remaining institutions, a memorandum of agreement

between the board and the faculty association is in place, which specifies policies and procedures

related to academic appointments, promotion and other conditions of faculty work.

Our emphasis in this study was on how these positions are constructed within university

policy. An important limitation of the study is that we did not secure data from individuals

holding these positions. The present study, anchored in content and text analysis, serves as a

baseline for further empirical research on how these positions are actually perceived and

understood by academic chairs, deans and others within the organization, and how they are

played out in day-to-day operations.

4 We focused on the chair as the head of an academic unit. This study excludes endowed research chairs, librarians and directors of Continuing Education departments. At some institutions, modest distinctions are made in the roles of chairs and deans of professional schools (e.g., Law, Medicine, Business), and we note these differences where relevant. At many Canadian universities, the Faculty of Graduate Studies coordinates graduate programming across the institution, and the position of dean of this unit is often described differently than other deans.


_____________________________________________________

11

FINDINGS

For most of the institutions in the sample, the primary documents for our analysis included the

collective agreement complemented by institutional policy documents that describe the role and

appointment of chairs and deans. Eight of the 30 universities examined have updated their

internal human resource policy manuals, guidelines and/or procedures in the past five years (that

is, since 2002). One university is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its human

resource policies. The majority (14) of the other 21 universities last amended their respective

policies in the mid-1990s.

Department Chairs

Chairs are academics – that is, they are professors, typically tenured, with teaching and research

backgrounds in a university setting – who temporarily step into this administrative role. In all 16

collective agreements where this issue is explicitly addressed, chairs are members of the

bargaining unit.

Terms of office:

Three-to-five-year appointment terms are the norm at 23 of the 25 universities that specify term

length for appointments. The other two universities stipulate a two-year and a seven-year term

maximum, respectively. More than 75 per cent (19 of the 25) of the universities allow the

incumbent to seek re-appointment for a second term of the same length or less.

Initial appointment process:

Our analysis of institutional documents suggests that chairs are appointed through one of three

processes:

1. Direct faculty election (one person, one vote). This is the process used at seven of the 30

universities.

2. Decision by a department committee elected by the faculty. This is the process at more

than half (16) of the 30 universities.

3. Decision by a dean following consultation with the faculty. This is the situation at three

of the 30 universities.

While no direct relationship appears to exist between institutional size and appointment

processes, it is our sense that smaller, primarily undergraduate universities are more likely to use


_____________________________________________________

12

departmental elections as a mechanism for selecting a chair, while larger institutions utilize

departmental committees. However, it is important to note that there are substantive variations in

procedures even within each of these three broad groups, perhaps reflecting what are clearly

unique institutional histories and organizational arrangements. Several examples illustrate the

immense variability:

1. At one small undergraduate university in Eastern Canada, the vice-president (academic)

determines whether the search will be internal, external, or both. On internal searches, the

dean calls for nominations, holds an election among department members, and casts the

deciding vote on a tie. When the search is open to both internal and external candidates

(inside and outside the university), a majority vote within the department is required.

Without a majority, the dean convenes and chairs a search committee comprised of two

departmental professors elected by the department; a professor from another department

in the faculty selected by that other department; “a person distinguished in the discipline

from another institution” chosen by the dean and the other committee members; and a

senior or graduate student elected by the student council. Short-listed candidates present a

public lecture and meet faculty members, whose preferences are given full consideration

and are forwarded to the vice-president (academic).

2. At another small Maritime university, the process is simpler and more centralized. The

selection committee consists of the department’s incumbent chair, the dean, all

department faculty members, including those on leave at the time of the election, and

student representatives. The president and vice-presidents are not members. The registrar

conducts the secret ballot vote. The president can veto the committee’s recommendation.

3. At one large university in Western Canada, the president convenes an advisory

committee because of the large diversity in size and complexity among academic units.

The committee’s size and composition are at the president’s discretion.

4. At another large university in Western Canada, chairs are appointed through an

Academic Appointment Review Committee comprised of the provost and vice-president

(academic) as chair, four tenured faculty (one from outside the faculty, all selected by a

faculty council), two provost-appointed members, one non-voting faculty association-

chosen member, one non-voting student, and one relevant external professional.


_____________________________________________________

13

Generally speaking, department chairs are constructed as internal appointments involving

the selection of an individual from within the department or other areas of the university,

although procedures also allow for the possibility that the university will move toward an

external search where no internal candidate can be identified. Procedures for publicizing open

positions internally and externally are usually noted in the faculty association collective

agreements and/or university policy statements. Of the 30 universities we reviewed, about a

quarter of the institutions have explicit statements on how positions should be advertised.

Re-appointment:

Chairs can seek a second term of office, although the process for re-appointment is usually not

described in the same detail as initial appointments. In two cases, the policies stipulate that

renewal requires input of the selection committee (that is, the same mechanism set up for initial

appointments), and a faculty ratification vote.

Reporting and relationships (internal and external networks):

The chair reports to the dean. In terms of descriptions of responsibilities, the chair is usually

described in terms of internal (inside the university) responsibilities and relationships. These

internal relationships include references to participating in academic unit search committees for

other chairs and deans (five of the 30 universities), review committees for promotion and tenure

of faculty (three institutions), “Councils of Chairs” for review of institutional policies and

procedures (two of the 30) and for review of programs and courses (one of the 30). Four other

universities note a general, unspecified, involvement with institutional “bodies”. The majority,

53 per cent (16 of the 30), are silent on this aspect of the role and responsibilities of a chair.

An external role for the chair in the community outside the institution is mentioned by

only four universities reviewed, in terms of liaisons with inter-university committees within the

respective disciplines, granting and licensing agencies, professional organizations and research

institutes. One university, for the Health Sciences area chair in particular, mentions the work of a

department chair as “supporting applications for industry research contracts”. None of the policy

documents or position descriptions makes any explicit reference to fundraising or revenue

generation from external sources.


_____________________________________________________

14

Position descriptors/titles:

The most frequently used position descriptor – at more than three-quarters of the universities

where we found explicit descriptors (14 of 17) – refers to providing and/or demonstrating

“leadership”, with a third of the total specifically indicating “academic leadership”. “Research”

is the next most prevalent descriptor, followed by “initiative”, which are both referenced by four

institutions. Representation and communication – that is, serving as the “voice” for the

department, are also common to four of the institutions. “Scholar” is referenced in three cases.

The position itself is most commonly referred to as “the CEO of the area” (six of 22) and “a first

among equals” (three of 22). One university highlights the chair as a “model” for other faculty,

with the overarching goal of fostering an “ambience where education, scholarship, service can

flourish”.

The general tenor of the title is that of a senior officer, responsible for leading and

administering the human resource and financial aspects of a department within a faculty,

facilitating research and teaching, and representing the department and its interests within the

institution.

Position responsibilities:

The vast majority (23) of the 30 universities reviewed provide some form of detail about position

responsibilities in their respective human resource policies and/or faculty association

memoranda/agreements on chair duties.

Management of staff (recruitment, work load assignments and teaching allocations,

career development, performance reviews, tenure and promotion recommendations) and a focus

on scholarly activity and budget preparation are common to all 23 of the 30 universities with job

descriptions for chairs.

Administration of university policies is the next most prevalent feature of a chair’s job

(seven of 23), followed by program development and curriculum planning (five of 23) and

liaison with students (four of 23). In one case, coordination of web page and external publication

content in university documents is mentioned among priority functions.


_____________________________________________________

15

Remuneration:

The most common approach for remunerating the chairs is to provide an administrative stipend,

above the academic salary. Amounts between $1,200 and $7,5005, per annum, appear to be the

norm based on provisions in collective agreements/memoranda of understanding and from

federal government academic compensation data. In some cases, the level of stipend depends on

the size of the department (in terms of students or faculty).

Faculty Deans

Deans are commonly referred to as “senior officers” of the university and participate as members

of executive standing committees reporting to the board on matters of program and academic

planning and implementation but do not typically appear on the executive team organization

charts and do not report directly to the president. Where faculty unions exist, deans are explicitly

excluded from the bargaining unit but are permitted entry/re-entry into the bargaining unit upon

completion of their term of office as dean (some with a conditional salary review)6.

Deans are presumed to be academics, although the emphasis on and requirement for

scholarship as a criterion for the position during the selection process is not clearly prescribed in

all the university documentation we reviewed. Recruitment from within the immediate university

appears to be given priority over external hires based on the wording in the majority of policy

documents accessed and the amount of detail provided on internal procedures. However, most

universities appear to advertise for both internal and external candidates as part of the search

process, and the use of external consultants in the search process is not unusual.

Terms of office:

In the vast majority of universities (19 of the 21 universities where there is an explicit statement),

the term of office for a dean is five-to-six years. One university describes a five-to-seven year

term of office, and one other indicates a seven-year maximum. Deans can be re-appointed at

5 All dollar amounts are expressed in Canadian currency. 6 Some collective agreements note that deans are permitted to continue paying union dues during the time they are

not part of the bargaining unit. They may be managers, but they are managers who might voluntarily pay union dues.


_____________________________________________________

16

least once following their initial term. One university stipulates that the second term must be no

less than three years to an eight-year maximum.

Initial appointment process:

In comparison with the chair appointment process, selecting a dean involves greater involvement

by the senior administration, such as the vice-president (academic) and the president 7, and

always requires final ratification by the board. The faculty dean is selected in one of four ways:

1. A search committee comprised of both elected and named members, reflecting faculty

consultation for the committee membership. This approach is followed at more than half

(17) of the 30 universities we surveyed that specify the process in policy documentation.

2. Same as the first but, at two of the 30 universities, faculty also evaluate and provide input

on recommended candidates.

3. Direct elections among tenured faculty and full-time administrative staff for the preferred

candidates. This is the case at three of the 30 universities.

4. Directly by the president with faculty input. This is the process at three of the 30

universities.

At each of the 25 universities that have an explicit process, the vice-president to whom

the dean reports (typically the vice-president [academic]) convenes and chairs the search

committee. The competition for the dean’s position is open to both internal and external

candidates. Similar to the situation with chairs, the actual procedures differ by institution,

generally irrespective of institutional characteristics. The following examples illustrate some of

the specific procedures described in institutional policy documents:

1. At one mid-sized medical/research university in Central Canada, the vice-president

(academic) and provost, convenes and chairs a nominating committee, the membership of

which is mandated to maintain “a reasonable gender balance” and the majority of which

is made up of seven of the immediate faculty’s “regular faculty members”; one senior

faculty member from another faculty, selected by the committee chair; and one graduate

student from the faculty appointed by the graduate student association. The list of

7 The vast majority of deans (at 22 of 28 universities providing this information) report to the vice-president (academic) and/or provost. At one university, the dean reports directly to the president.


_____________________________________________________

17

candidates is sent to the faculty’s eligible members for input and secret ballot voting. In

the event of a tie or a non-conclusive outcome, the committee selects and recommends a

candidate to the president. This appears to be a highly democratic process, with extensive

faculty input.

2. At one small, primarily undergraduate university in Eastern Canada, faculty consultation

is strong, with direct influence on the final choice. The vice-president (academic)

convenes and chairs a search committee comprised of one dean who is appointed by the

president and represents another part of the university; one department chair chosen by

the chairs of the immediate faculty; one full professor and one associate or assistant

professor chosen by the immediate faculty’s professoriate; one student chosen by the

student council; one president-appointed member of the senior academic support staff;

and two board-appointed board members. The committee draws up a short list of at least

two candidates, who present a public lecture and meet the faculty, students and senior

administrators from the faculty. Faculty members from the immediate faculty are asked

to submit confidential written opinions on the candidates. The committee submits this

information to the president with a recommendation.

3. At one large research university in Central Canada, the president directs the selection

process, placing notices, naming the advisory committee chair and inviting input of

faculty members for questions to be posed to candidates, either in confidence or in open

meetings. The president, who can appoint him/herself as committee chair, has sole

discretion on the committee size. Specific titles and types of representation on the

committee (that is, as to job or community constituency such as students, faculty, alumni

and others) are not indicated in the documentation at our disposal. However, the

requirements for ranks and disciplines are provided, in addition to the provisos that the

majority of members must be from the immediate faculty and from departments and

faculties that are closely related (e.g., medicine, psychiatry) and a specific number of

female faculty must be members.


_____________________________________________________

18

Re-appointment:

The process for re-appointment of a dean is generally not described in the same detail as initial

appointments. At one institution, if the incumbent wants to serve another term, the vice-president

(academic) and research, obtains a confidential assessment of the incumbent’s performance from

faculty and chairs in the immediate faculty, other deans and administrative personnel, and

discusses the findings with the president. At another institution, the review committee

established for the initial appointment re-convenes and consults with faculty members in the

immediate faculty, other deans and senior administrative officers about the individual’s

performance in this role to date. Findings and conclusions are forwarded to the board, the senate

steering committee, the president and the incumbent. The board makes the final decision. In the

event a search is required, the review committee becomes the search committee.

Position descriptors/titles:

At two-thirds of the universities (13 of 19) that describe the position of dean, the word

“leadership” is the prevalent position descriptor. The qualifier “academic” appears five times,

while each of “professional”, “intellectual” and “administrative” appears three times. Other

individual descriptors include “visionary”, “dynamic”, “collaborative” and “distinguished

scholar”. The most common titles are “senior administrative and academic officer” (six of 19)

and “CEO of the faculty” (four of 19).

Position responsibilities:

While the form and extent of involvement vary, at all 24 (of 30) universities where we have

obtained job descriptions, the dean is responsible for making recommendations to senior

management and the board on a wide array of human resource decisions (hiring, promotion,

tenure, disciplinary, dismissal and compensation matters), planning and control of finances and

budget administration within the faculty. Strategic planning for the faculty, in the context of the

university’s overall plan, and implementation of university policies are mentioned by a third of

the universities reviewed (eight of 24).

Internal and external networks:

About a third (seven of 24) mention ex-officio membership in all faculty committees and the

faculty council, and representation on university-wide committees. Liaison with professional and


_____________________________________________________

19

educational bodies outside the institution and serving as spokesperson to raise its profile (in

addition to his/her immediate faculty) are noted as key responsibilities at close to half (11) of the

24 universities reviewed. A priority at two institutions is establishing partnerships within and

outside the university to promote its educational, research, and innovation agenda; and to

contribute to the immediate community and region. Reference to fundraising is specifically

highlighted in the position descriptions at two universities. One university also specifies the

importance of developing innovative solutions to maximize revenue generation and new

distinctive programs to meet professional needs in various disciplines. Fundraising activity for a

dean of Arts is implied at one university in the hiring of an individual on the strength of her

revenue generation success in another institution and knowledge of international economies. At

one university, the reference to securing “necessary resources” through external sources is

explicit for the dean of Business.

Serving as a “communication channel” and demonstrating commitment to “academic

excellence”, “teaching”, “program development” and “research” are also indicated by a third

(eight of 24) of the universities canvassed. Attention to students – notably, faculty allocation to

graduate students, student counselling, review of student course evaluations, fellowships and

scholarship decisions – is specified by more than a quarter (five of 24) of the universities.

“Consensus building” within the faculty is noted by one institution. One explicitly states “no

teaching requirements” for the dean as an academic while in this administrative role. “Teaching”

responsibility is not noted directly in any of the documents we reviewed; reference to “teaching

abilities” is mentioned twice.

Remuneration:

Based on analysis of 2004-05 salary data from a sample of 50 universities8 (Statistics Canada,

2007), deans are paid substantially more than full professors or department chairs. These data

indicate that the dean’s salary is markedly higher in each category of university than the salary of

the chair and the full professor who has no administrative responsibilities. The average salary

difference, in the aggregate, between a dean and a chair is close to $34,000, or about 24 per cent.

8 We began by attempting to analyze salary data from our initial sample of 30 institutions but decided to expand to 50 since relevant data were missing from some institutions, and the respondent populations in chair/dean categories were statistically insignificant at smaller institutions.


_____________________________________________________

20

The greatest difference is in the primarily undergraduate category, where the difference is closer

to $38,000, or 30 per cent. The highest salaries for deans (as well as chairs and full professors)

where these data are reported are in the medical/research universities, while the lowest are in the

primarily undergraduate institutions.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Canadian universities are established as independent, autonomous corporations. Most are created

by distinct acts of incorporation. Given this legal foundation, it should come as no surprise that

there are substantive variations in the decisions that individual institutions have made in terms of

their governance and administrative structure. They have unique administrative structures and

budget and planning processes, and different institution-specific collective agreements that

govern the conditions of employment of university faculty. It is clear from this study, however,

that there are common elements in terms of how universities have constructed the positions of

chair and dean within institutional policy documents and agreements.

Most notable, from the data collected, is our conclusion that the formal roles and

responsibilities of chairs and deans have not changed dramatically in recent years. Most

universities have policy documents that describe these positions and the appointment process,

and while most universities in our sample revised these documents during the last decade, there

is little evidence of any substantive changes in the nature of these positions or the mechanisms

for appointment. Both positions focus on internal management of financial and human resources

– in particular, concern with development and administration of budgets and with staff matters

such as hiring, promotion and tenure, career development and compensation decisions.

Activities related to establishment, monitoring and modification of programs and

curricula, and student affairs, are also key preoccupations of chairs and deans. This does not

necessarily mean that deans and chairs are not experiencing changes in the nature of their work,

but it does suggest that universities are not racing to reform or to reconstruct these positions.

Whether by way of a search committee or directly, the selection of chairs is not moving

away from democratic collegial elections toward appointed executive functions. This shift,

which has received some attention in studies of other jurisdictions, is not supported by our study

for Canada. Chairs continue to be selected locally and to be positioned as members of faculty


_____________________________________________________

21

unions. However, the selection of deans is less grassroots oriented, with greater input and control

by senior management and the board in the final decision.

There is little evidence to suggest the position of chair is becoming professionalized.

These are largely internal appointments for short terms of office, and the assumption continues

that, at the conclusion of the appointment, the department chair will return to his/her role as a

faculty member. The level of remuneration for chairs is quite modest. There is no sense of the

department chair as a distinct career track. In fact, while reappointment is possible, institutional

policy assumes that chairs should not be permanent appointments.

The situation of the dean is somewhat less clear. There is little indication that there have

been major changes to the formal role of these positions as described in institutional policy, but

then again deans have long been regarded as senior executive positions and central

administrators have long played a key role in these appointments. Decanal searches are generally

broader in scope, and universities frequently employ professional consultants in the search

process. Decanal salaries are now substantively higher than their senior academic peers. These

salary levels imply more authority/responsibility relative to a senior professor who has been

willing to take on a few additional administrative chores. At the same time, universities continue

to establish limits on the appointment terms of deans based on the assumption that it is not in the

best interests of the university for these positions to be held on a continuous or permanent basis.

Does this mean the market mind-set and mechanisms are less prevalent in middle-

management ranks in Canada’s public universities than in other jurisdictions? Ten years ago,

Slaughter and Leslie argued that Canada had not yet caught up to the profit-motive movement,

relative to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (1997). More recent studies

have indicated a growth in competition and market-like activity within Canadian higher

education (Fisher, et al, 2006; Jones & Young, 2004; Shanahan & Jones, 2007) , and there is

every reason to believe deans and chairs are experiencing mounting pressure to become

increasingly entrepreneurial and to seek out new sources of revenue while restraining costs. At

the same time, it is interesting to note that these objectives have not become part of the

vocabulary used to describe these positions and their role within the university. A small number

of universities describe an “external” role for chairs and deans, and there are few references to

position objectives that might somehow correspond to fundraising, generating new resources, or


_____________________________________________________

22

commercialization activity. Once again, these activities may well form a developing component

of the work of chairs and deans, but these roles have not been incorporated into institutional

policy documents.

One key factor that may be playing a role in discouraging large-scale change in the roles

of chairs and deans in Canadian universities is faculty unionization. Academic human resource

decisions are, perhaps, the most important decisions universities make, and in the Canadian

context, the procedures utilized to make these decisions are frequently prescribed by collective

agreements. University administrators cannot unilaterally change these procedures, and the role

of chairs and deans in key faculty personnel decisions are largely defined within these contracts.

In the agreements we reviewed for this study, the chair is generally described as a faculty

member who is a union member, while the dean is termed “a first among equals” and presumed

to come from faculty ranks but who is outside the association during the term of office.

We have also observed recruitment notices for newly-created functions at the executive

level, with titles such as “vice-president, advancement” and “vice-president, external relations”,

for the specific jobs of seeking out potential money-making ventures and sources, and building

the institutions’ profile in Canada and abroad, with students, business interests and government

bodies. Are these positions, which generally do not require academic experience, responding to

market forces in a way that is not possible for chairs and deans, given their faculty affiliations?

At the same time, there seems to be an increasing sense of a need to provide chairs and

deans with specialized professional development given the increasing complexity of their

working environment and the growing skill set required of these positions. A number of

universities have recently initiated new professional development programs. Further studies may

also look at the level of institutional support provided to these positions within the university.

Has the level of administrative support for these positions increased – notably, in terms of

financial, planning and fundraising expertise?

Ultimately, in a broad business sense, based on our analysis, the dean could be

considered the strategist and the conduit between his/her faculty and other faculties within and

outside the university; and between the president/executive management and external

constituents (professional and licensing bodies, community groups, potential donors and research

partners) as a spokesperson to generate goodwill and to attract monies for his/her faculty and the


_____________________________________________________

23

university as a whole. The chair could be called the tactician and the conduit between faculty and

the dean. Whether the work of the strategist and the tactician is increasingly a function of market

motives and embedded in a “new managerialist” paradigm is not substantiated by our study and

merits further research. Nonetheless, the policy documentation and collective

agreements/memoranda of understanding vary among institutions, and many formal statements

and contract provisions are silent on specifics of roles and responsibilities, leaving the door open

to possible flexibility in the execution of duties, latitude of decision-making, and scope of

relationships within and outside the academy. Further research to determine whether the findings

in this study are borne out in the daily practice of chairs and deans, in different disciplines, is the

next critical step to inform our understanding of and insights into middle management in

Canada’s universities.

References

Anderson, B., & Jones, G.A. (1998). Organizational capacity and political activities of Canadian

university faculty associations. Interchange, 29(4), 439-461. Baker, R.J. (1997). Prince Edward Island. In G.A. Jones (Ed.), Higher education in Canada:

Different systems, different perspectives (pp. 245-258). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Brown, L.M. (2001). Leading leadership development in universities: A personal story. Journal

of Management Inquiry, 19(4), 312-323. Cameron, D.M. (1992). Institutional management: How should the governance and management

of universities in Canada accommodate changing circumstances? In J. Cutt, & R. Dobell (Eds.), Public purse, public purpose: Autonomy and accountability in the groves of academe. Halifax, NS: The Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Canadian Association of University Teachers (2006). CAUT almanac of post-secondary

education 2007 (pp. 7-21). Ottawa, ON: CAUT. Concordia University (2007, February). Campus network. Founding Dean, School of General

Studies. Concordia University, Montréal. In University Affairs (p. 80). Ottawa, ON: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Currie, J., Deangelis, R., de Boer, H., Huisman, J., & Lacotte, C. (2003). Globalizing practices

and university responses: European and Anglo-American differences. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.


_____________________________________________________

24

Fisher, D., Rubenson, K., Bernatchez, J., Clift, R., Jones, G.A., Lee, J., MacIvor, M., Meredith, J., Shanahan, T., & Trottier, C. (2006). Canadian federal policy and postsecondary

education. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia.

Jones, G.A. (2002). The structure of university governance in Canada: A policy network approach. In A. Amaral, G.A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education:

National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 213-234). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jones, G.A. (2006). Canada. In J. F. Forest, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Volume 2 (Ch. 32). International handbook of higher education (pp. 627-645). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Jones, G.A., & Young, S. (2004). “Madly off in all directions”: Higher education, marketization, and Canadian federalism. In P. Teixeira, B.B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, and A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets and higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 185-205). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Harris, R.S. (1976). A history of higher education in Canada: 1663-1960. Toronto, ON:

University of Toronto Press. Horn, M. (1999). Academic freedom in Canada: A history. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto

Press. Konrad, A.B. (1978, November). Deans in Canadian higher education: A profile and selected

perspectives. Paper presented at a Career Development Seminar, organized by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the University Council for Educational Administration, Toronto, ON.

Lawless, D.J. (1981). Academic decision making in British and Canadian universities.

Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba. Macdonald, H.I. (1979). The changing role of the professor and administrator. In A. Gregor, &

K. Wilson (Eds.), Monographs in education I: Issues in higher education. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba.

Macdonald, J.B. (1966). The west. In R. S. Harris (Ed.), Changing patterns of higher education

in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. McGill University (2007). Organizational and staff development. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from

the McGill University Web site: http://www.mcgill.ca/hr/staffdevelopment/ Moses, I., & Roe, E. (1990). Heads and chairs: Managing academic departments. Queensland:

University of Queensland Press.


_____________________________________________________

25

Orton, L. (2003). A new understanding of postsecondary education in Canada: A discussion

paper. (No. 81-595-MIE – No. 011). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Penner, R. (1978-79). Faculty collective bargaining in Canada: Background, development and

impact. Interchange, 9(3), 71-86. Penner, R. (1994). Unionization, democracy, and the university. Interchange, 25(1), 49-53. Savage, D.C. (1994). How and why the CAUT became involved in collective bargaining.

Interchange, 25(1), 55-63. Shanahan, T., & Jones, G.A. (2007). Shifting roles and approaches: Government coordination of

postsecondary education in Canada from 1995 to 2006. Higher Education Research and

Development, 26(1) 31-43. Skolnik, M.L. (2005). Reflections on the difficulty of balancing the university’s economic and

non-economic objectives in periods when its economic role is highly valued. In G.A. Jones, P.L. McCarney, & M.L. Skolnik (Eds.), Creating knowledge, strengthening nations: The

changing role of higher education (pp. 106-126). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the

entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Somers, H.J. (1966). The Atlantic provinces. In R. S. Harris (Ed.), Changing patterns of higher

education in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Statistics Canada (2007). Centre for Education Services. University and college academic staff

survey 2004-05. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Tudiver, N. (1999). Universities for sale: Resisting corporate control over Canadian higher

education. Toronto, ON: James Lorimer & Company, Ltd. (CAUT). University of Manitoba (2007). Leadership/supervisory supports. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from

the University of Manitoba Web site: http://www.umanitoba.ca/admin/human_resources/lds/supervisory/506.htm

University of Northern British Columbia (2007). UNBC agreement. Retrieved January 7, 2007,

from http://web.unbc.ca/~faweb/agreement.htm University of Ottawa (2007). Centre for academic leadership. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from

http://www.academicleadership.uottawa.ca


_____________________________________________________

26

Vickers, J.M. (1979). The changing role of professors and university administrators. In A. Gregor, & K. Wilson (Eds.), Monographs in education I: Issues in higher education. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba.

Watson, R.E.L. (1979). The role of the department head or chairman: Discipline, sex and

nationality as factors influencing faculty opinion. The Canadian Journal of Higher

Education, IX(3), 19-28. Watson, R.E.L. (1986). The role of the department chair: A replication and extension. The

Canadian Journal of Higher Education, XVI(1), 13-23.

the roles and responsibilities of middle … roles and responsibilities of middle management (chairs...

Documents